Let's take the example of the US: you have the President and the Congress. The President is elected for 4 years.

In the US you have two big political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats.

Why are both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party choosing only 1 of their members to become President?

Bush will run for the Republicans in 2004, and maybe Dean for the Democrats. If you put them on a political scale, you will see that Dean is quite a bit on the left, while Bush is quite to the far right. Why can't as well the Democrats as the Republicans offer the voters a choice of a Democrat quite far to the left, a Democrat almost at the Centre, a Republican around the Centre and one quite far on the right?

Like this, the 4 most important ideologies are represented (a real left, a centre-left, a centre-right and a real right).

"Bush will run for the Republicans in 2004, and maybe Dean for the Democrats. If you put them on a political scale, you will see that Dean is quite a bit on the left, while Bush is quite to the far right. Why can't as well the Democrats as the Republicans offer the voters a choice of a Democrat quite far to the left, a Democrat almost at the Centre, a Republican around the Centre and one quite far on the right?"

That's what the role of primaries is in the US. For example, there are nine candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination right now, ranging from Joe Lieberman on the right (supported the war in Iraq, in favor of substantial tax cuts...) to Dennis Kucinich on the left (strongly internationalist, supports a larger welfare state and cuts in defense spending...). In the next few months, different states will hold their primaries. In most cases, only registered Democrats will be able to vote, but a few allow Independents or even Republicans to participate. After a few weeks of these contests, a clear winner is likely to emerge, and the others will drop out (Howard Dean seems the mostl likely bet right now). That person will oficially become the Democratic presidential candidates after his delegates (most of whom are elected in the primaries) will cast their votes at the Democratic convention in Boston this summer. The candidate will then face Bush in November's general election.

Republicans will not have any contested primaries this time around, as Bush (*boo, hiss*) is the incumbent president. Clinton did not face any intra-party competitors in 1996 for the same reason.

Numerous candidates of smaller parties as well as independents also run, but they have virtually no chance of winning. Ross Perot made a good showing in 1992, and Ralph Nader got enough votes to cost Gore the 2000 election, but the structure of the American political system all but assures that it will remain a two-party system for the foreseeable future. The US does not have any run-off presidential elections, which are common in some countries (such as France). In other words, there is not minumum percentage the winning candidate must obtain in order to win, so there is only one round, and vote-splitting is a real danger. It also helps explain why there is a primary system.

To correct Sabena690, Bush is not far right, even though he is conservitive, he is not that far right. On the other hand, Dean is far far far left. If I had to choose a demoncat, (I rather eat dog food first!), I would have to choose Liberman since to me he is right there in the center, unlike the other demoncats running to get their buts kicked by Mr. George W. Bush.

"To correct Sabena690, Bush is not far right, even though he is conservitive, he is not that far right. On the other hand, Dean is far far far left."

Actually, on the global political spectrum, Bush is pretty far to the right (considerably more so that even his closest European allies), while Dean would be actually be considered a centrist or a centrist liberal in most European countries (only, say, Kucinich or Nader would be leftists). It's just that the American political spectrum itself tends to be more to the right than those in most other countries.

To correct Sabena690, Bush is not far right, even though he is conservitive, he is not that far right. On the other hand, Dean is far far far left.

I think that you say this being yourself quite far to the right, not? Dean certainly is not more to the left than Bush to the right.

As said above, certainly from a European perspective, Bush is far on the right and certainly far conservative.

I would have to choose Liberman since to me he is right there in the center

Lieberman centre? I think you have to learn again what left- and right wing means dude...

Out of curiosity, what do the Republicans find from Lieberman? I'm just wondering because he was pro the war... Can you define Lieberman as a Democrat, but heavily influenced by the Republican ideology?

Clarck is in the same situation: he is a democrat in theory, but in fact he is quite Republican I think... Wouldn't he do a good job as President?

To add to what PHX-LJU said, and to maybe give you another twist on your question of why American parties seem to go to extremes for Presidents (You've asked numerous times but I just thought you were being cynical, sorry):

Bottom Line: Each party nominates their man/woman from within their respective conservative or liberal ideals. The chosen candidate is therefore more often than not going to be either more liberal or more conservative than moderate. Rarely do the wings (demo - repub) send in a moderate candidate to run in Nov.

The Democratic Base (more liberal than the average voter) chooses their guy/girl through the primaries, and in an election like this where there are so many factors that have liberals going crazy, the choice is likely going to be very a very liberal candidate such as Dean. You would think that someone more moderate, like say Sen. Joe Biden would get the nod because he would appeal to more voters across the spectrum in the final November election. But the problem is Biden likely would have run into the same problem as the other candidates... he isn't tough enough on Bush nor liberal enough as the Democratic base voters would like him to be.

Same goes with the 2000 election, McCain was a more moderate Republican but because of that didn't appeal to the Republican base (right) which wanted an anti-Clinton. And since the nomination from each party leans more in their column (right or left) than the general population you subsequently get final candidates that are more right or left than the general population would want.

That wasn't cleanly written but the best I could muster at the moment.

By US political standards, Lieberman is a centrist. Gephardt and Edwards are left-leaning, Kerry is left, Dean is solidly left, Kucinich is far left.

Bush is conservative but not far right. McCain was more moderate than Bush, but many of the 2000 Republican primary candidates were more conservative. Most people from abroad seem to judge him entirely on the Iraq war, which is certainly important but not the only defining moment of his presidency. One of his favorite governing strategies has been to co-opt popular Democratic initiatives and push them through Congress with a Republican tilt. This takes issues away from the Dems, but Bush has upset many conservatives in the US with his enormous spending programs (No Child Left Behind education bill, farm subsidies, Medicare expansion, etc.).

Nondefense discretionary federal spending has been exploding under Bush, so liberals who call him a tightwad starving essential government services have absolutely no leg to stand on. This rampant spending is creating huge budget deficits, but most of the Dems would repeal the tax cuts in order to spend them, not meaningfully reduce the deficit.

Also, as mentioned in the 50% Dem / 50% Rep thread, the electoral college makes it very hard for more than two candidates to compete. States usually assign electoral votes on a "winner-take-all" basis, so third-party candidates must carry a plurality of votes in a majority of states, which is very difficult (note that if no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives selects the President, each state delegation getting one vote). This effectively shuts out third parties, and given that the public pays most attention to the presidential race, makes life difficult for third-party Congressional candidates. There is one independent Senator who is aligned with the Democrats, and a few independent / third-party Representatives, but they make up a tiny fraction of federal officeholders.

Unlike Europe, there are no coalition governments formed in the US, so the two major parties have no incentive to cooperate with the minor parties. Third-party candidates are rightly seen as "vote-stealers" who siphon votes off major party candidates. Nader (Green) almost certainly cost Gore the White House in 2000, as Perot (Independent) probably did to Bush I in 1992. As others have mentioned, the parties only run one candidate to maximize their share of the vote.

You're asking alot of the US. I don't see many EU members offering any centre-right (let alone hard-right) ideologies.

Not in a Republic, but in a Monarchy. In Belgium, there is a choice between extreme left, left, green, centre-conservative, liberal (right), extreme right.

To all: thanks a lot for the valuable input! Much appreciated...

but Bush has upset many conservatives in the US with his enormous spending programs (No Child Left Behind education bill, farm subsidies, Medicare expansion, etc.).

I don't know what he exactly did with the examples above, but those seem to be quite good measures! I guess that 'No Child Left Behind education is something to give every child the possibility to go to school? Medicare expansion seems to be good too... What's exactly the problem with those measures?

Every American has the right to a public education; this is not in doubt. But many conservatives do not want the federal government involved in education for two reasons.

First, federal attempts to impose a once-size-fits-all standard across the extremely diverse US school system can cause serious problems. The "No Child Left Behind" model pioneered by Bush as governor of Texas requires school districts to meet certain performance standards in order to qualify for increased federal funding. As you can see above, education funding has risen a whopping 60% in only three years under Bush. It turns out that the program's "miraculous" record in Texas may have been exaggerated because districts fudged their numbers to meet performance standards. That system has now been instituted across the country.

Second, the US Constitution delegates specific responsibilities to the federal government and reserves all other governmental functions to the states. Education is not assigned to the federal government, so many conservatives believe it should be the responsibility of the states. Liberals (this is not a dig, merely a statement of fact as I see it) are typically less worried about the Constitutional separation of powers and more willing to let the federal government enact desired legislation.

The Medicare prescription drug entitlement will be extremely expensive, piling extra costs on an agency that faces a long-term budgetary nightmare. According to the Cato Institute, Medicare faced a $13.3 trillion budget hole through 2040 before the recent expansion, putting it in even worse shape than Social Security. The prescription drug program will cost at least $400 billion over the next ten years, and will probably turn out to be much more than that. As Cato remarks, "That's a bit like a family that can't pay their mortgage deciding that they should build a new swimming pool." Its necessity is also questionable: polls state that 87% of seniors are satisfied with their current prescription drug programs. Also according to Cato, "70 percent of Medicare beneficiaries spent less than $500 from their own pockets for prescriptions last year. A small, targeted prescription drug benefit aimed at the small number of low-income seniors with high drug costs might have made sense."

Generally, American conservatives, and to some extent the Republican Party, stand for reduced government intervention, lower taxes, less spending, etc. Bush and the Republican Congress have been on a spending spree that calls their fiscal conservatism into question. I point this out because many people are quick to label Bush as a far-right ultra-conservative, when his record is much more ambiguous.